My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE34390
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE34390
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:44:22 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:09:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
CIVIL ACTION 01-CV-38
Violation No.
CV2000009
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
therefore it had no basis w adjudicate the company's objection to vacation of the NUV 6 Clearly, <br />the Tatums have a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of this issue. Such a victory <br />would render the hearing scheduled for April 25, 2001, entirely unnecessary. At the very least, <br />DM G`s support for the Tatums' position on standing and the absence of any pertinent fording in the <br />Boazd's order make the issue of Basin's standing to challenge vacatiott of the NUV sufficiently <br />"serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful" as to warrant a decision on the merits. Temporary relief <br />from the Boazd's order is certainly appropriate in these circumstances. <br />Even if the Court were to decide that Basin established administrative standing to contest <br />vacation of the N()V, the 1'atums would likely prevail un the issue whether DMCi had authority to <br />vacate the NUV in the first place. Tnherenlly, any agency entpowcrrd to issue enforcement action <br />also has the power, subject to administrative or judicial review, to vacate such action when it <br />determines that enforcement is no longer warranted. Moreover, in providing for limited <br />adruirtistrative review of any "modification, vacation, or termination" of enforcement action, the <br />Colorado Surface C'nal Mining and Reclamation Act contemplates that DMG will from lime to time <br />modify, vacate, or terminate previously issued enforcement action. Culu. Rev. Stat. § 34-33- <br />124(1)(a). The ststute simply makes no sense if, as the Board has held in this case, DM('r lacks tltc <br />authoriri to vacate its own enforcement action. <br />6 in Basin's brief in response lu the "1'aturtts application for temporary relief. counsel <br />for the cornpam• attempt the same trick in this Court. Basin reiterates the same allegations of harm <br />its cuunsal azgucd before the Boazd. It is telling that Basin cites to nnthinR in record that supports <br />tktcse allegations, which arc little short of preposterous in light of the Tatums' express disavowal of <br />any intention to reinvoke the administrative process except in aid of collecting any judgment they <br />may obtain in this Court. <br />15- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.